In article <37938E1C.F5545928 at pacbell.net>, Richard McCollim
<mapache at pacbell.net> writes
>Tore,
>> The real authority on this subject has to be V.S. Ramachandran. In his
>recent work "Phantoms in the Brain",
Great book. Recommend it to anyone with any interest in the brain.
> he deals with the most bizarre visual
>phenomena you can think of. He shows convincingly that some outlandish brain
>disorders that most people regard as a psychiatric problem can be explained in
>terms of known brain circuity.
This seems to imply that psychiatric problems cannot be explained by
neurobiology, and if they are, they are no longer within the domain of
psychiatry. In fact the main thrust of modern psychiatry is to seek the
neurobiological processes underlying such problems. Capgras syndrome,
which you mention below, is a good example of a psychiatric syndrome
which can potentially be explained in terms of brain circuitry (in this
case the proposed mechanism is visuolimbic disconnection.)
>> He deals with cases of actual physical injury to various parts of the
>brain and how they affect visual perception and personality. This is
>absolutely the best book on the subject, highly readable, and very relevant to
>the case you describe.
>> You want bizarre? How about Capgras' syndrome? These subjects come to
>regard family memebers and close acquaintances as impostors. He rejected
>Freudian interpretations involving family conflicts when he found a patient
>who had suffered head trauma in a car accident and afterward claimed that his
>pet poodle was an impostor and that the real Fifi was living in Brooklyn.
>There are actually areas in the brain that deal specifically with the
>recognition of faces, and a stroke or other trauma can render it ineffective.
>This, he believes, is the more likely explanation.
>> There is lots more, from phantom limb syndrome to idiot savants. A very good
>book.
>Another good one is "Space and Sight" by M. von Senden, published in German in
>1932 and in English in 1960.
>>--Richard
>-------------------------------------------------
>Tore Lund wrote:
>>> Nick Medford wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm trying to picture the reaction of your average ophthalmologist being
>> > asked to see such a patient. (Is this what you mean by "vision
>> > specialist"?)
>>>> Agreed, "vision specialist" was a rather silly term. What I had in mind
>> was researchers specifically interested in the mechanics of visual depth
>> perception, and most of those are not even doctors, I suppose.
>>>> What I have been trying to elicit is reports of unusual visual
>> perspectives and possible explanations for them in terms of this or that
>> model of vision. Sorry if that has not been clear.
>> --
>> Tore Lund <tl001 at online.no>
>
--
Nick Medford
